Scot's Porridge and Sour Grapes
Good to see my old Unison colleague - Jim Devine - is keeping his mind active - while serving out a 16-month prison sentence for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
Jim has apparently written a letter to the prisoners' newspaper - Converse - complaining that in the age of the internet it has become impossible for public figures (like himself presumably) - to get a fair trial.
Good title - Converse - don't you think?
Whoever though that one up deserves a prize - or some time off their sentence, perhaps.
Anyway, Jim's complaint is that his character was so badly trashed in the run up to his trial - that the outcome was inevitable.
Now this sounds a bit like sour grapes to me - especially as JD was the only former Labour MP to plead not gulity at his trial.
Because Jim's reputation was in tatters by his own hand - and through stories that appeared in the regular press - long before the internet played any part in his downfall.
The internet did not drag the former Labour MP into an employment tribunal which found that he had unfairly sacked his office manager - nor did the internet trigger explosive stories about his parliamentary expenses in the Sunday Herald.
Besides a jury makes its decision about someone's guilt or innocence - based solely on the evidence presented in court - despite the odd nutter or two who wants to keep up a running text or 'tweet' conversation with friends.
What people hear on the TV or radio - or read in the papers or internet - must be set aside before a trial gets underway - and that of course can cut boths ways.
I suppose one alternative might be to ban juries altogether - and have these cases decided by professional judges - sitting alone.
But I can't see many people buying that as a better way forward - and I can't see what difference it would have made to Jim Devine's case - in any event.
Jim has apparently written a letter to the prisoners' newspaper - Converse - complaining that in the age of the internet it has become impossible for public figures (like himself presumably) - to get a fair trial.
Good title - Converse - don't you think?
Whoever though that one up deserves a prize - or some time off their sentence, perhaps.
Anyway, Jim's complaint is that his character was so badly trashed in the run up to his trial - that the outcome was inevitable.
Now this sounds a bit like sour grapes to me - especially as JD was the only former Labour MP to plead not gulity at his trial.
Because Jim's reputation was in tatters by his own hand - and through stories that appeared in the regular press - long before the internet played any part in his downfall.
The internet did not drag the former Labour MP into an employment tribunal which found that he had unfairly sacked his office manager - nor did the internet trigger explosive stories about his parliamentary expenses in the Sunday Herald.
Besides a jury makes its decision about someone's guilt or innocence - based solely on the evidence presented in court - despite the odd nutter or two who wants to keep up a running text or 'tweet' conversation with friends.
What people hear on the TV or radio - or read in the papers or internet - must be set aside before a trial gets underway - and that of course can cut boths ways.
I suppose one alternative might be to ban juries altogether - and have these cases decided by professional judges - sitting alone.
But I can't see many people buying that as a better way forward - and I can't see what difference it would have made to Jim Devine's case - in any event.
